I would be in favor of one group id. For the developer, hierarchies are really important. They are visible in the directory layout of the Maven project and in the dependency tree. For the user, it shouldn't matter how the project is structured. He pulls in artifacts simply from the "org.apache.beam" group. I think it makes outside-interaction easier when we have a fixed group id.
Cheers, Max On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Lukasz, > > both are possible. > > Some projects use different groupId. It's the case for Karaf or Camel for > instance: > > http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/karaf/ > > You can see there the different groupId, containing the different artifacts. > > On the other hand, other projects use an unique groupId and multiple > artifactId. It's the case in Spark or Flink for instance. > > At first glance, I had a preference to groupId for "global" Beam kind of > artifacts (like io, runner, etc). But, it would make sense to work more on > the artifactId. > > Regards > JB > > > On 03/21/2016 04:50 PM, Lukasz Cwik wrote: >> >> I like the single groupId since it makes it simpler to find all related >> components for a project. >> >> Is there a common practice in maven for multi-module vs inheritance >> projects for choosing the groupId? >> >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 7:32 AM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi beamers, >>> >>> I updated the PR according to your comments. >>> >>> I have couple of points I want to discuss: >>> >>> 1. All modules use the same groupId (org.apache.beam). In order to have a >>> cleaner structure on the Maven repo, I wonder if it's not better to have >>> different groupId depending of the artifacts. For instance, >>> org.apache.beam.sdk, containing a module with java as artifactId (it will >>> contain new artifacts with id python, scala, ...), >>> org.apache.beam.runners >>> containing modules with flink and spark as artifactId, etc. Thoughts ? >>> 2. The version has been set to 0.1.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT for all >>> artifacts, including the runners. It doesn't mean that the runners will >>> have to use the same version as parent (they can have their own release >>> cycle). However, as we "bootstrap" the project, I used the same version >>> in >>> all modules. >>> >>> Now, I'm starting two new commits: >>> - renaming of the packages >>> - folders re-organization >>> >>> Thanks ! >>> Regards >>> JB >>> >>> >>> On 03/21/2016 01:56 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Davor, >>>> >>>> thank you so much for your comments. I'm updating the PR according to >>>> your PR (and will provide explanation to some changes). >>>> >>>> Thanks dude ! >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> JB >>>> >>>> On 03/21/2016 06:29 AM, Davor Bonaci wrote: >>>> >>>>> I left a few comments on PR #46. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks JB for doing this; a clear improvement. >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 6:04 PM, Jean-Baptiste Onofré <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I started the renaming process from Dataflow to Beam. >>>>>> >>>>>> I submitted a first PR about the Maven coordinates: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/apache/incubator-beam/pull/46 >>>>>> >>>>>> I will start the packages renaming (updating the same PR). For the >>>>>> directories structure, I would like to talk with Frances, Dan, Tyler, >>>>>> and >>>>>> Davor first. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> JB >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>>>>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Jean-Baptiste Onofré >>> [email protected] >>> http://blog.nanthrax.net >>> Talend - http://www.talend.com >>> >> > > -- > Jean-Baptiste Onofré > [email protected] > http://blog.nanthrax.net > Talend - http://www.talend.com
